A word on Enlightenment

Originally posted by Theophorus
This goes out to all you New agers.To be enlightened is to be aware. To have an awareness of something, one must have KNOWLEDGE of the existence of
that something. In this case that something being enlightenment or awareness which in turn can only be boiled down to knowledge itself.Now, People are
finite beings meaning we have limited boundaries. The knowledge we gain is also finite. Point being made is that in our finite state enlightenment is
un-obtainable.Anyone looking into there finite self to find infinite knowledge is just kidding themself.

Goodness!!!

Oh, did you know that the quantum (being a finite, indivisible unit of action, proven to exist over 100 years ago by its physical requirement,
given the fact that electron orbits don't progressively decay into complete collapse) debunks the entire concept of the physical existence of
infinity? It's true.

You can't prove the non-existence of infinity via expansion, but you can prove that it doesn't, and can't, exist via contraction - the required other
expression of physical infinity. And 100 years ago, they did prove it. So much for any form of infinity, since infinity (if it is truly
infinite) can't only be infinite in one direction.

Isn't logic and reality fun?

Oh boy here we go. Seriously.

You cannot use a weight scale to measure distance and you cannot use finite logic to measure infinity. Simply put, scientific nomenclature and math
will indefinitely fail at identifying or communicating anything that is not delusional, finite or without substance. But if you insist.. give me a
reference to the actual mathematical proof.

If you believe finite reality is the only true reality when can we expect it to end? Should be easily calculated.

The idea that there are infinite halves between one point and another is the contraction end of infinity. The paradox is that if you always move one
half the distance closer from point A to point B, you'll never actually reach point B, due to the 1/2 distance reduction proceeding for infinity.
This, however, was proven to not be true when Max Planck determined that this infinite scale gradient can't possibly exist, since if it did exist,
then the electron orbits could never maintain their uniformity, and material existence could never progress from the simplest orbital structure of one
single atom.

And, yes, it's just that simple. The quantum is the proof that the infinite distance scale gradient is non-existent in material/physical reality, and
only exists in the arguments of human beings. That being the case, infinity as an expansion concept also cannot exist, since infinity - by it's very
definition - must be infinite in expansion and reduction if it's to actually exist. Since it doesn't - and can't - exist in reduction, it can't - and
doesn't - exist in expansion either. This is because if infinity is not an absolute, then it's not infinite. Logic isn't invented by people. It's
recognized as existent by people. You can dismiss it, but it doesn't change the fact that it lays the sub-structure for everything that exists as
real.

with what you were defining above detailing "infinity" /.,,.,., what would be the definition of infinity?

if infinity could exist what would it look like?

like what does the infinity symbol represent? can it represent multiple things like distance and time and quantity of something like energy? or is the
concept and definition of infinity literally all things? all possible things? everything that can be? if there is contained somewhere everything that
can be,,, couldnt there be more?

Why can't you all just act civilized instead of letting your Egos take everything personally?

Theophorus, Enlightenment is a state of mind, a state of reality, a state of existence. Let's say you take a view from a logical solipsistic angle.
You can deduce that your mind exists because you are perceiving reality. You can come to the conclusion that your mind exists because you have
thoughts and thoughts are not a manifestation of the brain. However, you can not conclude that any one else exists. Sure it is highly probably that
they do and that they have a consciousness, but you can not directly experience their mind.

Logically, we can only say that our mind exists. We can not even know if this reality is truly physical (even physical on an atomic level) or
if it is merely a dream dreamt up by us. So, once again, logically, we can only say that our mind's exist. With that knowledge, we can say that
"enlightenment" must be a state-of-mind.

Now, I want you to show me where your mind is. Show me the physicality of your mind. Can you grab it and hand it to me? Can you contain it inside a
jar? Or your head even? Most people assume their mind is in their head but science tells us that all all external stimuli is just a manifestation of
the neurons in our brain and that every thing truly is in our head. Meaning, the mind could lie anywhere but it is being rendered by our brain in our
head (could be off on Mars).

With the mind not existing physically, it has to be infinite.

ETA: And really... what an ironic statement to claim that one person is not open-minded enough for the "Philosophy" board and then go and spit
on their way of thinking because they do not agree with yours.

This, however, was proven to not be true when Max Planck determined that this infinite scale gradient can't possibly exist, since if it did exist,
then the electron orbits could never maintain their uniformity, and material existence could never progress from the simplest orbital structure of one
single atom.

If your basing Infinity on Planck, good luck with that. There is much more to the picture that you may eed to add before you make your conclusions.
FOr example in Bose/Einstein condensate when carbon atoms are brought down to as close to absolute zero coldness, they eventually transform from atoms
to strings and then are in a quantum state where they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Such a state itself can be Infinite and
Nonlocalized.

Add to that George Cantor, as I will quote from my signature. The man single handedly gave the world Infinite Math, which he was scoffed and laughed
at by his peers at the time, but now is a fundamental part of mathematics. I would go so far as to say that he even gave mathematical proof for a real
existence of Infinity. Sadly it lad to him having eventual psychosis and having to go into an institution. WHy? Because I think the man actaully
experienced Infinity and it just completed destroyed him.

"What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no 'Genus'; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which
includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding." georg cantor mathematician

Then we have the world's smartest man with the highest IQ who basically dropped a theory, w maths and all to prove God and Infinity to exist and is
saying that its untrumpable and so far nobody has dared try to refute it: God Theory by world's smartest man

So your saying your theory is untouchable, w/ no infinity, but this man, World's smartest, is saying there is an Infinity and that his theory is
untouchable. Someone's gonna have to lose this one.

Logic isn't invented by people. It's recognized as existent by people. You can dismiss it, but it doesn't change the fact that it lays the
sub-structure for everything that exists as real.

Is art and what defines it being good, logical? Is love logical? I think logic lays the sub-structure for labels, knowledge, limits, and confines. But
there are realities, that can be experienced, that are undefinable and transcend logic. On that note, it may bring trouble to your theory if your
theory revolves around logic as the basis for everything.

Check out Peter Kingsley. He's got a few books about ancient Philosophers Empodocles and Parminides who pre-dated socrates and basically prove
Logically that Everything is a Oneness.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
Poor NorEaster, he has spent thousands of hours relentlessly gazing and picking at philosophy and science books, learning to mimic their words and
ideas, just to troll a conspiracy website and shout people down for an ego kick.

"I refuse to read about what the most peaceful and content people on earth have realized about life, I am busy trying to realize something no one has
found before, even if it drives me insane. Hopefully this will give me the credibility and recognition I am so desperately seeking. I need it!"

Then please PLEASE start with understanding the human animal. Embrace the fact that we are meat, blood and bone. Embrace the fact that 'human
thought' is a byproduct of the engine called the brain. Thought (consciousness) is not an entity capable of sustaining itself. It needs an engine, a
brain, and when that engine shuts down it can no longer produce thought.

We are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, minerals, energy... Everything we are stays right in the realm we call 'Something'. We cannot slip into a
realm of nothing.

with that same train of thought lets take knowledge for example. Human Knowledge doesnt exist physically so that must mean human knowledge must
be infinite ? This makes little if no sense.

Gods knowledge is infinite, therefore human knowledge is infinite. There is no separation between human beings and God, other than the idea of a
human being is an intellectual construct alone. The concept you endorse is just a man made limitation. Your concept of self makes you believe it is
true, but that self you refer to...where is it?

Originally posted by dominicus
So the next step was, to find out who I am that is not a thought, the real me. Well no matter what conclusion I came to, it always concluded in
thought. Well thought is all B.S. super imposed imagination. So basically I rejected all thought, all superimposition, all mind stuff ....and in doing
so, there was a shift beyond the mind, beyond I, beyond ego.

Enlightenment is realizing you are not enlightened, never were and never will be....

and so from that point on,,, in each situation you find your self in,,, you will work towards becoming enlightened..

The opposite is also equally true as luck would have it. When you take a stance, (you pick a polarity).

You are always enlightened, and never can be otherwise. This is called your Buddha nature. You look for answers when the answers are already
within.

" There are no conditions to fulfil...there is nothing to be done, nothing to be given up...Just look and remember...whatever you perceive is not
you, nor yours...it is there in the field of consciousness...but you are not the field and its contents...nor even the knower of the field...It is
your idea that you have to do things that entangle you in results of your efforts...the motive...the desire...the failure to achieve...the sense of
frustration...all this holds you back...Simply look at whatever happens and know that you are beyond it..." Nisargadatta Maharaj ♥

I understand your viewpoint as equally correct, just everything can be deemed perfect or imperfect and yet both are true statement. You can take a
materialist and spiritual perspective too. It matters not.

yea,,, well is it that you see enlightenment as a status..... like the concept of being "cool" or having Dr. in front of your name......

you get to think of your self as enlightened,,, for your own benefit,,, and for a positive and revering judgement from others? i see no other benefit
or purpose for endowing yourself with such a title,,,,,

edit on 20-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on
20-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

"It is your idea that you have to do things that entangle you in results of your efforts"

can i say it is your idea the you do not have to do things that entangle you in results of your efforts?

knowledge is not a physical thing. Therefore we do not have tools that can
measure it and say here is where it begins and here is were it ends. However, we can measure our knowlege by comparing to others with inferior
knowledge.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.